Why would anyone with a BS degree want to be a lab aide??
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louri Caldwell [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: HT/HTL
> I agree. Having a higher certification shouldn't mean higher pay unless
> duties are different between the two classifications. The HTL should be
> paid higher if the responsibilities of the position warrant it.
> I have a lab aide here that has a BS degree - not certified - and I pay
> as I do all the other lab aides. Her responsibilities are the same. It
> seems the same should apply to techs as well.
> Just my thoughts.
> Louri Caldwell, BS, HTL (ASCP)
> >From: "Morken, Tim"
> >CC: 'Histonet'
> >Subject: RE: HT/HTL
> >Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 07:56:27 -0400
> >To me just getting a higher certification is not grounds for higher pay.
> >person would have to take on more responsibility to earn that. If they
> >doing the same work, I suggest that is a waste of the higher-certified
> >persons knowledge and skill.
> >At the last hospital I worked in we had two grades for techs. We had a
> >larger lab with 11 techs, so it was easy to designate different duties.
> >was "bench tech" and that covered all the routine work, including
> >done under supervision. We also had a "Senior Tech" position which
> >supervising bench techs in a given area. For instance, We had three
> >techs (four if you count cytology), one over routine cutting, staining
> >special stains, and one over the grossing/frozen section area and one
> >IHC,ISH Kidney and muscle work. Each senior tech was responsible for
> >managing the workflow, handling problems, developing technologies,
> >new techs, and covering for abscences if necessary. They had a
> >pay difference between these two positions. The supervisor was another
> >above the senior tech.
> >At a smaller lab I worked at (4 techs and a lab assistant) it was not as
> >clear cut as far as supervisory jobs went. But we did have distinctions
> >between lower grade and higher grade. The base was lab assistant, who got
> >all the grunt work. Then if a person got their HT they were promoted and
> >handled routine histology work and didn't have to do the lab assistant
> >work. If a person got their HTL then they were eligible for special
> >in IHC, ISH, and EM. They were also made responsible for some aspect of
> >lab; maybe specials, grossing, IHC etc. We all did the routine work, but
> >then had the special responsibility for a given area. That responsiblilty
> >included QA/QC, writing procedures, developing new techniques, training
> >others, etc. The pay difference was significant between HT and HTL. There
> >was no policy that there had to be a certain number of HT's or HTL's; in
> >fact the lab director would have been happy as punch to have all HTL's
> >working in the lab (besides lab assistants, which we always had). This
> >seemed to work well, even in such a small lab. When I left we had three
> >HTL's and one HT and the lab ran very smoothly. I will say that the lab
> >director (pathologist) was always interested in all kinds of training for
> >the people in our lab and would pay out of his own pocket to help people
> >(the hospital would pay nothing!). I realize now that I was in a very
> >special situation at that institution.
> >Tim Morken
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Soto, Roxanne [mailto:RSoto@covhealth.org]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:55 PM
> >To: Histonet (E-mail)
> >Subject: HT/HTL
> >Hi everyone,
> >Can anyone tell me what you do with job classification between
> >and technologists? Do you have a distinction? If an HT and an HTL sit
> >side by side and do the same exact work everyday, no more, or no less,
> >should there be a distinction between them? And by distinction, I am job
> >code and pay grade.
> >Thanks for any input.
> >Roxanne Soto HT(ASCP)
> >AP Supervisor
> >FSL (SJH, SFH, EMH)
> >Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message.
> >information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the
> >recipient(s) named above and their co-workers who are working on the same
> >The recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing the
> >information to any other party unless this disclosure has been authorized
> >If you are not intended recipient of this message or any agent
> >for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> >notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in
> >reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. You
> >immediately destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> >Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
> >Internet E-Mail for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
> >information in this message that do not relate to the official business
> >the firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>